Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    • 27,218Posts
    • 325,371Thanks
    davemorton
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 11:43 AM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 462
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Jun 19, 11:59 PM
    • 21,468 Posts
    • 270,275 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    By the way, don't forget to empty your Tesco Bank current accounts today, apart from anything that is going towards a bill or payment.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 14th Jun 19, 12:11 AM
    • 21,468 Posts
    • 270,275 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    As for Tesco, I have got nothing against them as I seem to have been shopping there a little more often in the past few months. And I've now heard yesterday that their sales have increased but by a slower rate. So maybe I am doing something right - I've not been going too big and dipping my toe in the water now and then seems to have been in proportion to the fact there are still increasing sales but not by a lot - if their sales were to start to decline and they start losing money, that seemingly must mean they really will then have got lots of great offers back on (the extent of which I haven't seen for many years) and we should then be shopping there far more. Not quite yet it seems.

    Cynic.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 14-06-2019 at 12:15 AM.
    • diluvsdiscounts
    • By diluvsdiscounts 14th Jun 19, 5:59 AM
    • 4,101 Posts
    • 41,713 Thanks
    diluvsdiscounts
    Afternoon all:
    No rain here ................yet today although all afternoon its looked like its going to chuck it down
    Di, how are you going to dry your'e washing in the winter?
    Originally posted by bubbs
    Good morning. Is there any end to this rain

    Bubbs I bought a heated airer from Lakeland when we moved here, it dries a load overnight. I wanted a second freezer rather than a tumble drier there is a laundry on site so I could use that, in fact I'm going swimming at the baths this morning that would be an option I suppose. Throw it in on my way past and collect it when I'm done.

    Do you have amenities on yours? It's the best decision we've ever made, we love it. I cant believe it but we've been here nearly six months now.

    Enterprise I agree to a certain extent about life being too short to be cleaning constantly but it would only take you ten minutes and I think you might be surprised at the results.
    0/28lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 14th Jun 19, 6:48 AM
    • 33,778 Posts
    • 445,712 Thanks
    tweets
    Good Morning :hello;

    (((X))) Enterprise thinking of you today .

    Sleazy (((X))) Hope you feeling better

    Yes its raining again lol.
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 14th Jun 19, 6:50 AM
    • 33,778 Posts
    • 445,712 Thanks
    tweets
    sweeties was yesterday's smartest player!
    21 players played

    http://www.funtrivia.com/private/main.cfm?tid=99008

    Today's Topic (Friday): Music 1 : Easier
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 14th Jun 19, 6:57 AM
    • 21,841 Posts
    • 221,238 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Morning all, just nipping in, we don't need to leave for an hour or so.

    It as sunny here at the moment, had rain overnight though.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • Sunshinemummy
    • By Sunshinemummy 14th Jun 19, 7:01 AM
    • 16,775 Posts
    • 198,534 Thanks
    Sunshinemummy
    Anyway, nothing really matters now, because we live in country where taking Class A drugs is now acceptable as long as -

    (a) you don't get caught at the time;
    (b) you only tell people about twenty years later; and
    (c) you express "deep regret" about what you did (although I am not sure whether (c) is a requirement).

    So, all bets are off now. Because, even when there are laws, people don't comply with them anyway so none of them really matter do they?
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    And at the same same..... didn't he write an article ..... I will get off this subject as that man makes me feel physically sick!

    Savvy - we all love you loads x
    • Sunshinemummy
    • By Sunshinemummy 14th Jun 19, 7:05 AM
    • 16,775 Posts
    • 198,534 Thanks
    Sunshinemummy
    Good morning. Is there any end to this rain

    Bubbs I bought a heated airer from Lakeland when we moved here, it dries a load overnight. I wanted a second freezer rather than a tumble drier there is a laundry on site so I could use that, in fact I'm going swimming at the baths this morning that would be an option I suppose. Throw it in on my way past and collect it when I'm done.

    Do you have amenities on yours? It's the best decision we've ever made, we love it. I cant believe it but we've been here nearly six months now.

    Enterprise I agree to a certain extent about life being too short to be cleaning constantly but it would only take you ten minutes and I think you might be surprised at the results.
    Originally posted by diluvsdiscounts
    I find, if I do the cleaning, I end up being obsessed with it.....nah I will leave it to OH to give it a manly clean... but occasionally it gets the better of me, and I still have to bottom the full house.

    I would love a clean house, but do not want to spend my life doing it... or argue with OH as he can only see manly dirt!
    • Sarahdol75
    • By Sarahdol75 14th Jun 19, 7:50 AM
    • 7,208 Posts
    • 93,458 Thanks
    Sarahdol75
    Good morning everyone.

    enterprise thinking of you today xx
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 14th Jun 19, 7:51 AM
    • 18,422 Posts
    • 39,510 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Morning All

    Hope everything goes as ok as it can today Enterprise.
    Weekly Distance Walked 30km / Total For Year 1162 km
    • curl girl
    • By curl girl 14th Jun 19, 7:55 AM
    • 4,016 Posts
    • 39,504 Thanks
    curl girl
    Morning all.

    Savvy you worried me last night.
    Hope you are okay today.
    Sorry to disappear last night but as I'm not very technical I couldn't be much help anyway.
    Hope you're sorted this morning.
    curl girl with a space - even though there is no space in my cupboard!!!
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 14th Jun 19, 5:16 PM
    • 18,422 Posts
    • 39,510 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Evening all
    Weekly Distance Walked 30km / Total For Year 1162 km
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 14th Jun 19, 5:48 PM
    • 56,502 Posts
    • 647,296 Thanks
    bubbs
    Good morning. Is there any end to this rain

    Bubbs I bought a heated airer from Lakeland when we moved here, it dries a load overnight. I wanted a second freezer rather than a tumble drier there is a laundry on site so I could use that, in fact I'm going swimming at the baths this morning that would be an option I suppose. Throw it in on my way past and collect it when I'm done.

    Do you have amenities on yours? It's the best decision we've ever made, we love it. I cant believe it but we've been here nearly six months now.

    Enterprise I agree to a certain extent about life being too short to be cleaning constantly but it would only take you ten minutes and I think you might be surprised at the results.
    Originally posted by diluvsdiscounts
    Hi Di
    In the winter apart from bedding and towels i put them in the drier, mines outside, i put on the airier before i go bed with dehumidifier on and its dry in the morning

    No nothing here was on the other one but i didn't use them.
    6 months!! Wellwe have been here nearly 9 months
    Evening all
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    Hi Sleazy hope you are better?
    Evening everyone else
    Well its lovely here now, just put the washing out
    Enterprise, hope everything went as well as it could
    Had my other op date today 10th July
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 14th Jun 19, 6:19 PM
    • 21,841 Posts
    • 221,238 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Thank you everyone, it went as well as it could, apart from being a few minutes late. We left two hours for a journey that has never taken over 80 minutes, we arrived 5 minutes late. We sneaked in and sat at the back though, so real loss thank God. And then the journey back took two hours, again a lot longer than usual. No idea why but the traffic was atrocious today.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 14th Jun 19, 6:37 PM
    • 56,502 Posts
    • 647,296 Thanks
    bubbs
    Thank you everyone, it went as well as it could, apart from being a few minutes late. We left two hours for a journey that has never taken over 80 minutes, we arrived 5 minutes late. We sneaked in and sat at the back though, so real loss thank God. And then the journey back took two hours, again a lot longer than usual. No idea why but the traffic was atrocious today.
    Originally posted by Enterprise 1701C
    Oh no, bet you was getting yourselves into a right state
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 14th Jun 19, 6:44 PM
    • 21,841 Posts
    • 221,238 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Oh no, bet you was getting yourselves into a right state
    Originally posted by bubbs
    Just a bit, but fortunately we were able to call DS who was ahead of us, just so they knew we were nearly there.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 14th Jun 19, 8:18 PM
    • 21,468 Posts
    • 270,275 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    As for Tesco, I have got nothing against them as I seem to have been shopping there a little more often in the past few months. And I've now heard yesterday that their sales have increased but by a slower rate. So maybe I am doing something right - I've not been going too big and dipping my toe in the water now and then seems to have been in proportion to the fact there are still increasing sales but not by a lot - if their sales were to start to decline and they start losing money, that seemingly must mean they really will then have got lots of great offers back on (the extent of which I haven't seen for many years) and we should then be shopping there far more. Not quite yet it seems.

    Cynic.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Oh crikey - I really am with Tesco. I have received an unexpected response from the Advertising Standards Authority about a matter I thought had been closed several months ago. Turns out the advertiser [identity redacted] wasn't able to agree changes to their ad after I complained about it being misleading.

    "Further to XXX’s email below, we contacted [the advertiser] about the issue you raised and were not able to agree on changes to their advertising. In the meantime we have also received a further similar complaint, from Tesco, about the same ad. We’ve therefore decided to further investigate the ad."

    I don't know whether my point of issue is the same one as any points that Mr T might have raised. I suppose they'd be saying Tesco's cheaper, whereas I was saying Tesco is cheaper on some things in the ad and Morrisons cheaper on others on which Tesco is more expensive.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 14th Jun 19, 8:38 PM
    • 21,468 Posts
    • 270,275 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    The mystery of course is why complain to the ASA when you don't get any compensation for doing so (e.g. if you have goods misdescribed in an advert). Therefore not money-saving. However, this is all in my misguided truly altruistic aspect to myself that I have from my autism where I do things even though of no personal benefit and only of potentially benefit to others (who then don't repay the favour and often take advantage of me), as part of specialist interest as usual and in my acting in the public interest and in pursuit of the truth - I wasn't affected at all by the advert but knew the facts behind it that people generally will not know and therefore it's in my consumer role and fits into this website I suppose as a consumer website. Don't complain to the ASA as you don't get any money.

    I am very strange. I don't make enquiries or ask questions that people normally ask or which fit into normal types of questions people have. I therefore get replies from other organisations that say this is not within our remit or things such as "we don't act on behalf of individual consumers" to which I respond "I know" before I reply and reveal that I have no individual case as I haven't bought goods from anyone() but instead was acting in the public interest on behalf of everyone, and is precisely what the organisation's role is.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 14th Jun 19, 8:41 PM
    • 21,468 Posts
    • 270,275 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Breaking: Police say no action against Jo Brand, so obviously it looks like they have decided it isn't incitement to violence or else there isn't any public interest in bringing a case (whether or not they have consulted with the CPS I don't know).

    BBC have replied, missing the point and copying me their reply to complaints about the joke (the reply that offended me earlier). In it, they also said "It was never intended to encourage or condone violence" and then claimed "and it does not do so." Of course, the latter aspect is a positive assertion by the BBC and therefore, even though I can't know what intention was or was not there, it would await the BBC to prove that it doesn't encourage violence that they claim. Which is different from having to show that it does encourage violence (I make no claims either way - I just have the standard that if people make claims, they need to show them to be true and beyond their own assertions about them being true). At least the reported police decision stops me returning to the BBC now to say that they haven't given me any evidence to support their assertion that the joke didn't encourage violence (AFAIK condoning violence isn't a criminal offence, so I have concentrated on the 'encourage' point, although I suspect some terrorism law might have been brought in to sneak such a condoning offence into law in some contexts) and that the question of whether it encouraged violence was still to be shown to be the case and perhaps proven by dismissal of a prosecution. However, the police decision pretty much supports the BBC saying it didn't encourage violence and therefore I have left it there.

    "We trust this explains the position..." they say. Not really, in fact the 'explanation' now is even worse than the one that was clear from the extract reporting in the media. There isn't any explanation in the full statement and it does not explain anything.

    Having made their point about it not encouraging violence, the full ending is "...but we have noted the strong reaction to it. Comedy will always push boundaries and will continue to do so, but on this occasion we have decided to edit the programme. We regret any offence we have caused."

    This does not explain why they have decided to edit the programme. It just says that on this occasion they have decided to edit it. Is this because of their noting of the strong reaction to it or is it because of any offence they have caused or is it some other reason? It leaves us to assume and connect the editing to the strong reaction, but that is not what it says and doesn't state that at all. It just says "...but on this occasion we have decided to edit the programme", but doesn't explain why they have decided to do this. Therefore, the "We trust this explains..." does not do so. In fact, the media's assumptions (the BBC's own, in its role of news broadcaster rather than the organisation responding to complaints about the Radio 4 programme) provided an explanation that, it is now clear were the media's interpretation of the statement, and not the actual statement, which does not give any explanation as to why the decision has been made at all. I had an explanation, from the media but I now see that that is not the full actual statement and I now, from that, have no explanation at all as to why the decision to edit has been made. It just says "but ...we have decided to edit..." - it does not say why and then ends trusting there is an explanation, but none has been forthcoming. It also said "on this occasion" but doesn't make clear if that means on this occasion but not on others and doesn't explain why this occasion has resulted in a decision to edit or whether there is any general policy about editing from this point forward. So it seems the BBC is unaccountable as to its decisions to edit things. Presumably there was "editorial justification" since it was included in the programme in the first place (which was recorded and therefore an active choice when it was broadcast) but no explanation now of any basis as to why to edit.

    "Strong reaction" some will say. But that's a reading of assumption, following the media. There is nothing about "strong reaction" being a reason for editing in the BBC Editorial Guidelines IIRC. The BBC have sought to defend the broadcast, by saying it didn't encourage or condone violence. So it is all the more odd that a decision to edit has been made despite the defence.

    In fact this is the full statement from BBC Radio 4:
    "Heresy is a long-running comedy programme where, as the title implies and as our listeners know, panellists often say things which are deliberately provocative and go against societal norms but are not intended to be taken seriously. We carefully considered the programme before broadcast. It was never intended to encourage or condone violence, and it does not do so, but we have noted the strong reaction to it. Comedy will always push boundaries and will continue to do so, but on this occasion we have decided to edit the programme. We regret any offence we have caused."

    Let's parse this down (oh no, let's not Savvy but, as usual, you have no choice just like a story on the news when they end and say "Let's move onto [this instead]").

    "We carefully considered the programme before broadcast."
    Therefore there is no excuse for it being broadcast and found to be inappropriate by many people that it seems have now complained about it. It also doesn't sit easily alongside now editing the part out IMO.

    "Heresy is a long-running comedy programme where, as the title implies and as our listeners know, panellists often say things which are deliberately provocative and go against societal norms..."
    This won't work. It is not possible to go against societal norms, because breaching (or going against) social norms is in itself unacceptable. As considered from the POV of Ofcom and the Communications Act, the requirement is "that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material" (section 319(2)(f)). Something that "go[es] against societal norms" is therefore contrary to generally accepted standards and not to be broadcast. However, "generally accepted" standards conflict at times and the broadcaster's rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights have then to be considered. But, as mentioned before, this is a qualified right. It is therefore subject to restrictions as prescribed by law (thus the Communications Act - generally accepted standards to be applied to the regulation of programming) and restrictions as to the protection of others, such as the right of Nigel Farage not to be outraged, and the protection of "morality" (and, therefore, generally accepted standards and social norms and this clearly against those) and therefore I use the protection of morality restriction to trump freedom of expression, which therefore does not exist in this society, because protection of morality requires enforcing generally accepted standards and it is contrary to generally accepted standards, namely societal norms, and therefore in breach. This is how I would apply it if I were Ofcom. You can't be heretical because, by definition, that is contrary to accepted standards but as accepted standards have to be applied to the contents of broadcast services it therefore can't allow a programme such as Heresy. I have already demolished the 'free speech' argument that might be claimed to protect it. It does not protect it - it is contrary to generally accepted standards, which are morality, and therefore justified to restrict under "protection of morality" and unprotected. The right is qualified.

    The only point I am making here is that there is no free speech and you can always use any argument to suppress it and find it against generally accepted standards so that it does not exist.

    It may be harmful but not illegal. Especially since "harmful" material seems to be being defined as any material these days, under the ridiculous approach that society is going towards. I have heard two separate things through today about "harmful" material. Firstly, about supposed harmful gender stereotypes. How can a stereotype be "harmful"? You could just ignore it. Then it causes no harm. However, somewhere else clearly think it is harmful so it is. Secondly, an interview about "harmful material" on the internet. It turned out that this includes sexual material. Apparently that is automatically harmful. However, a child just stumbling across sex, that doesn't groom them or encourage them into it, has not been scientifically demonstrated to be harmful. Clearly, though, it isn't about material being harmful as a matter of scientific objective fact. Instead it is merely people's opinion that it is harmful and therefore generally "accepted" standards deem it to be - people generally "accept" some bizarre things even though they are not true - namely that something is harmful when it is not (as there is no scientific evidence and the research evidence inconclusive) - however, that is not the standard adopted, clearly - instead what is harmful is something that is believed to be harmful even though it is not (since there is no evidence that it is) and what is not harmful is stuff that is believed to be not harmful because people don't think it ever could be but which is in fact harmful because of scientific evidence of harm to someone's health that people wrongly think is beyond credibility.

    Therefore, a couple having sex, stumbled on by a child, not encouraged by any adult to do so, with no scientific evidence that that causes any psychological damage or harm to the child, is harmful because it is "accepted" to be even though it is not, whilst all that harmful material that eventually caused me post-traumatic stress disorder, and therefore clearly demonstrably evidentially is harmful because it has caused me harm by damaging my health and giving me a long-term disability condition that I did not previously have is fine and unharmful (even though it is harmful) because people generally would not think it was because they cannot see how it could be. It is not about what is in factual truth harmful or not harmful: is it about what people wrongly believe to be harmful when it is not and wrongly believe is not harmful when in fact it is. Thus the non-harmful things (factually not harmful) are harmful whilst the things that are actually harmful as a matter of objective fact are not harmful and are incapable of the harm that in fact they have caused since people generally accept wrongly that they are not harmful. It is about deeming things to be harmful (including those that they are not) whilst failing to class harmful things as harmful, because it is what is generally accepted to be harmful rather than what in fact is. The BBC regrets, although it does not apologise for, any offence it has caused and therefore it is offensive - it may or may not be harmful but the "and" in the provision about the supposed protection (that other members of the public get but I don't get, since the regulatory regime picks and choose which people to protect) from "offensive and harmful material" is interpreted as meaning "and/or". Perhaps it is also harmful as everything is "harmful" these days (seen as being harmful by someone or another).

    Perhaps we can get them on this though, since I am in favour of speech suppression:
    "...that material likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services" (section 319(2)(b)). How would I be able to use this, you might ask, given the police decision. I would argue under this provision the specific Jo Brand material is likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime even though it does not in fact do so. There is no requirement that it actually does! That is my argument: the provision doesn't mention anything about it having to do so and it doesn't therefore have to be a crime. The key word is "likely", and under this rule the material is surely in breach of the standards?

    So the fact that it doesn't encourage or condone violence is IRRELEVANT!! It could still be "likely to" do so (...even though, as I assume the police have found, it does not). Indeed, surely the fact there is no longer any police investigation opens this up to investigation under the regulatory standards instead? As I said, I am in favour of speech suppression as there is no free speech in this country and therefore looking to find anything I can to suppress something or to punish the original broadcast because society's standards are going to ridiculousness (IMO obviously).
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 14-06-2019 at 10:13 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 14th Jun 19, 10:59 PM
    • 21,468 Posts
    • 270,275 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    I still don't know what happened to the computer and whether it fixed itself (it seems to be operating normally but how do I know if it is or isn't?) or whether there is some corrupted memory in a place that I never use or which might be a problem later in its life when it has to use that memory space that it perhaps now can't use. So, I have been going easy with it today - not that I can but just wary of it suddenly messing up and being unable to stay on anymore. What it said was Windows 10 hadn't loaded up properly. It later seems to have done so, although I do not know whether it has - it looks the same as it should to me. What caused the problem was attempting (and failing) to log back into this website - I mistyped my password a number of times and may have then pressed two keys at once that caused something to happen or maybe they weren't the cause but the screen then flashed and the problems arose. They seem to have been sorted, although I can never tell.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 14-06-2019 at 11:01 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,031Posts Today

7,533Users online

Martin's Twitter